Historic District Commission Staff Report May 3 rd, 2017
|
|
- Leslie Jacobs
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Historic District Commission Staff Report May 3 rd, 2017 Page 1 of 26 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: Mount Vernon Street (HVAC) - Approved Islington Street (skylight) - Approved Islington Street (fencing and lights) - Approved PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS: Chapel Street (Minor windows) Humphrey s Court (Minor porch) Chestnut Street (Moderate sign) Congress Street (Minor awning & façade) WORK SESSIONS: A. 244 South Street (Moderate rear addition) B Maplewood Ave. (Major 3.5 story building) C. 206 Court Street (Moderate 3 story addition) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS: Park Street (Minor door & window) WORK SESSIONS: D. 163 Deer Street (Major a new mixed-use building) E. 157 Deer Street (Major a new mixed-use building) F. 299 Vaughan Street (Major Hotel) G. 113 Congress Street (Major storefront windows) H Islington Street (Major 13 unit development)
2 Page 2 of 26 WS-E WS-F WS-D WS-B WS-G WS-H PH-4 PH-3 PH-1 WS-C PH-2 WS-A HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING DATES: May 3rd and 10 th APPLICATIONS: 16
3 Historic District Commission Project Address: 38 CHAPEL STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #1 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4 Land Use: Multi-Family Land Area: 1,740 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1820 Building Style: Federal Number of Stories: 3 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Chapel Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To replace 14 windows and clapboards. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) I. Neighborhood Context: Page 3 of 26 The structure is located along Chapel Street and is surrounded with many contributing structures. The neighborhood is predominantly multi-story, wood and brick structures with small lots and shallow setbacks from the sidewalk. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant proposes to: i. Replace 14 windows with new aluminum clad, double-hung, SDL windows with a 6/6 muntin pattern; and, ii. Repair and/or replace damaged clapboards. Note that the applicant states that the existing windows are replacement windows from the s. Replacement in-kind of the clapboards is permitted as an exempt activity. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Window and Doors (08). K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
4 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN 38 CHAPEL STREET PUBLIC HEARING #1 (MINOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures No. GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories - INSTALL NEW WINDOWS ONLY - 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks/ Stairs / Steps Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:38 CHAPEL STREET Case No.: 1 Date: Page 4 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed W1thdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
5 Historic District Commission Project Address: 33 HUMPHREY S COURT Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #2 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: GRB Land Use: Single Family Land Area: 2,767 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1897 Building Style: Queen Anne Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Humphrey s Court Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: South End B. Proposed Work: To enclose porch with windows, a door and steps. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 5 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along Humphrey s Court and is surrounded with wood-sided 1.5 to 2.5 story historic structures with shallow setbacks and accessory buildings located in the rear yard. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Applicant is proposing to: Enclose the existing porch on the east elevation The siding is proposed to be beveled to match the existing siding. Marvin Integrity windows are proposed with SDL, double-hung, and the 2/2 muntin pattern consistent with the historic structure. The proposed door is a fiberglass, paneled door with glazing. Note that no details have been provided for the stairs and landing. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Window and Doors (08). K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
6 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 33 HUMPHREY S COURT PUBLIC HEARING #2 (MINOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories ENCLOSE PROCH AND ADD STEPS AND LANDING ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:33 HUMPHREYS COURT Case No.:2 Date: Page 6 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
7 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: THE MUSIC HALL Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #3 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD5 Land Use: Theater/ Assembly Use Land Area: 10,842 SF Estimated Age of Structure: c.1900 Building Style: Romanesque Number of Stories: 2 Historical Significance: C Public View of Proposed Work: View from Congress and Chestnut Streets Unique Features: Cultural Landmark Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To replace the marquee sign and replace 4 banners with a blade sign. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 7 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: This 2 story structure is located on Chestnut and Congress Streets and is surrounded with many contributing structures. The neighborhood is predominantly story wood and brick structures with no setbacks from the street edge. J. Staff Comments and Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to: i. Replace the existing marquee sign with a new marquee sign ii. Replace the 4 vertical banners with a lit blade sign. Note that the BOA on approved the variances needed for the blade sign on Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Signs and Awnings (11). K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
8 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. CHESTNUT STREET / MUSIC HALL PUBLIC HEARING #3 (MODERATE PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories - INSTALL MARQUEE AND BLADE SIGN ONLY - 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT HDC COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY: CHESTNUT STREET Case No.:3 Date: Page 8 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
9 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: 113 CONGRESS STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #4 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD5 Land Use: Commercial Land Area: 8,241 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1931 Building Style: Modern Number of Stories: 1 Historical Significance: Intrusion Public View of Proposed Work: View from Congress Streets Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: Replace front windows with retractable windows and screens. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 9 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: The building is located in the heart of the business district on Congress Street and is surrounded by a wide variety of significant and non-contributing structures. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to: i. Replace the storefront windows with retractable windows with a roll-down screen. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Windows & Doors (08) and Signs & Awnings (11). K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Streetview Images Zoning Map HISTORIC SURVEY RATING I
10 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS 113 CONGRESS STREET PUBLIC HEARING #4 (MINOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information No. GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures MINOR PROJECT INSTALL NEW STOREFRONT WINDOWS ONLY PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:113 CONGRESS STREET Case No.: 4 Date: Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate INSERT 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate PHOTO 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate HERE 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No SITE DESIGN I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No Page 10 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn
11 Historic District Commission Project Address: 244 SOUTH STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #A Existing Conditions: Zoning District: GRB Land Use: Single- Family Land Area: 7,776 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1790 Building Style: Georgian Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from South Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: South End B. Proposed Work: To add a rear addition and make exterior renovations & add chimney. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 11 of 26 J. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along South Street. It is surrounded with many wood 2.5 story structures with shallow setbacks and small side or rear garden areas. K. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Application is proposing to: ii. Add a 2.5 story rear addition with ground-floor parking. iii. Replace windows, add a door iv. Repair the siding and trim v. Add a chimney; and vi. Add a rear deck. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Small Scale New Construction & Additions (10). L. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C Zoning Map
12 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 244 SOUTH STREET WORK SESSION #A (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION AND NEW CHIMNEY ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:244 SOUTH STREET Case No.:A Date: Page 12 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
13 Historic District Commission Project Address: MAPLEWOOD AVE. Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL / CUP Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #B A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD4) Land Use: Parking Lot Land Area: 56,675 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: NA Building Style: NA Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: View from Maplewood Ave., Deer and Bridge Streets Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: North End B. Proposed Work: Construct a 4 story mixed-use building. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 13 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: a. The lot is located along Maplewood Ave., Deer and Bridge Streets. It is surrounded with a wide variety of 1-5 to 5-story brick-clad structures with shallow to no front yard setbacks. J. Staff Comments / Suggestions: The maximum building height for this property is 3.5 stories or up to 40 feet. Based on feedback from the Commission during the Work Sessions, the Applicant is now considering a four (4) story building as the penthouse level will exceed the maximum area requirement and the minimum stepbacks from outside building wall. The proposed height increase will require a CUP. Under the CUP, the Applicant is proposing the civic space to be wide pedestrian sidewalks and alleyways as well as underground parking, the use of high quality building materials, and a wide variety of scaling elements such as horizontal bands, awnings, boxed-bays, pilasters and a pedestrian arcade on an expanded section of the ground-floor. Note, as requested by the HDC, the applicant has submitted color schemes for the façade as well as a revised site plan, building elevations and details on the bays, brackets, railing systems. Design Guideline Reference: Guidelines for Commercial Development & Storefronts (12) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING - Zoning Map
14 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT MAPLEWOOD AVE. WORK SESSION #B (MAJOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MAJOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories CONSTRUCT A 4-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:46 MAPLEWOOD AVE Case No:B Date: Page 14 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
15 Historic District Commission Project Address: 206 COURT STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #C A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4-L1 Land Use: Institutional Land Area: 2,969 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1820 Building Style: Federal Number of Stories: 3.0 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Court and Church Streets Unique Features: Karnan House Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To add a 3-Story rear addition with elevator. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 15 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: The property is located along Court Street. It is surrounded with many wood- and brick-sided story structures with little to no front yard setbacks and shallow side yards. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: This application proposes to: Renovate the existing historic building Add a modern, 3-Story addition with an internal egress stair and elevator. Note that the applicant has requested a continuance to the June meeting for this project. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for Windows and Doors (08) and Small Scale Construction & Additions (10). K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
16 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 206 COURT STREET WORK SESSION #C (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories CONSTRUCT A 3-STORY REAR ADDITION ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:206 COURT STREET Case No.:C Date: Page 16 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
17 Historic District Commission Project Address: 163 DEER STREET (LOT 4) Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #D A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD5) Land Use: Commercial Bank Land Area: 17,130 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure(s): c.1985 Building Style: NA Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: View from Deer and Bridge Streets Unique Features: Abuts the Pan Am Rail Corridor Neighborhood Association: North End B. Proposed Work: Construct a 4-story mixed-use building. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 17 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: The lot is located along Deer and Bridge Street. It is surrounded with mainly brick 1-5 story structures with shallow to no front yard setbacks. J. Background & Suggested Action: The Applicant is seeking to continue with the 4-Step Design Process for a Major Project. Having completed the first phase - the review of the surrounding neighborhood context the Applicant is presenting plans to address the building locations as well as massing and scale. So far, the context also includes many buildings not yet constructed that are: 1) pending issuance of a building permit (i.e. HarborCorp); 2) pending final approval from the HDC (i.e Maplewood Ave.); or, 3) are outside the Historic District and are pending Planning Board approval (i.e. the other GL Rogers buildings and the City s Deer Street Parking Garage. The HDC should carefully assess the scale of the proposed buildings within the context of the existing and proposed buildings along Deer Street and Maplewood Ave. The proposed buildings should also be inserted into the City s 3D Massing Model to provide more informed feedback on the proposed building placement, footprint, materials, façade treatment, height and roof form(s). Design Guideline Reference: Guidelines for Commercial Development & Storefronts (12) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING - Zoning Map
18 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT 163 DEER STREET (LOT 4) WORK SESSION #D (MAJOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MAJOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories CONSTRUCT A 4-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:163 DEER STREET Case No:D Date: Page 18 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
19 Historic District Commission Project Address: 157 DEER STREET (LOT 5) Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #E A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD5) Land Use: Commercial Office Land Area: 21,050 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure(s): c.1970 Building Style: NA Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: View from Maplewood Ave. and Deer Street Unique Features: Abuts the Pan Am Rail Corridor Neighborhood Association: North End B. Proposed Work: Construct a 5-story, mixed-use building. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 19 of 26 J. Neighborhood Context: The lot is located along Deer and Bridge Street. It is surrounded with mainly brick 1-5 story structures with shallow to no front yard setbacks. L. Background & Suggested Action: The Applicant is seeking to continue with the 4-Step Design Process for a Major Project. Having completed the first phase - the review of the surrounding neighborhood context the Applicant is presenting plans to address the building locations as well as massing and scale. So far, the context also includes many buildings not yet constructed that are: 1) pending issuance of a building permit (i.e. HarborCorp); 2) pending final approval from the HDC (i.e Maplewood Ave.); or, 3) are outside the Historic District and are pending Planning Board approval (i.e. the other GL Rogers buildings and the City s Deer Street Parking Garage. The HDC should carefully assess the scale of the proposed buildings within the context of the existing and proposed buildings along Deer Street and Maplewood Ave. The revised building elevations should also be inserted into the City s 3D Massing Model to provide more informed feedback on the proposed building placement, footprint, materials, façade treatment, height and roof form(s). Note that the HDC requested the building designer consider a lower profile on the 5 th floor using increased stepbacks, pitched roofs, banding, bays and other massing techniques to reduce the scale of the building along Maplewood Ave. Design Guideline Reference: Guidelines for Commercial Development & Storefronts (12) M. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING - Zoning Map
20 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA Project Information GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT 157 DEER STREET (LOT 5) WORK SESSION #E (MAJOR) Abutting Structures NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Surrounding Structures MAJOR PROJECT CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:157 DEER STREET Case No:E Date: Page 20 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
21 Historic District Commission Project Address: 299 VAUGHAN STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #F A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD5) Land Use: Retail and Public Parking Lot Land Area: 56,192 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1970 Building Style: Industrial Historical Significance: NC Public View of Proposed Work: View from Green and Vaughan Streets Unique Features: Abuts North Mill Pond Neighborhood Association: North End B. Proposed Work: Construct a 5-story hotel building with parking. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 21 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: a. The lot is located along Green and Vaughan Streets. It is surrounded with mainly brick 1-5 story structures with shallow front yard setbacks. J. Staff Comments / Suggestions: The Applicant is seeking to commence the 4-Step Design Process for a Major Project. As such, the first phase of the review is the surrounding neighborhood context. The context is defined as the buildings (footprints, height, massing and materials) including the historical development of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Importantly, the context also includes many buildings not yet constructed that are, pending issuance of a building permit, the 250,000 SF HarborCorp Project. The new four story mixed-use building at 233 Vaughan Street and the 3S Art Space building to the north. The context also includes other character-defining elements such as North Mill Pond and the existing pedestrian trail along the rear of the property. The HDC should carefully assess the surrounding context in order to provide informed feedback on the proposed building placement, footprint, materials, façade treatment, height and roof form(s). Note that revised plans from the Applicant will be provided at the meeting. Design Guideline Reference: Guidelines for Commercial Development & Storefronts (12) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING NC
22 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT 299 VAUGHAN STREET WORK SESSION #F (MAJOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MAJOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY MIXED-USE HOTEL BUILDING 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:299 VAUGHAN STREET Case No: F Date: Page 22 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
23 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: 135 CONGRESS STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #G A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD5 Land Use: Commercial Land Area: 6,680A +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.c.1905 Style of Structure: Neo-Classical Number of Stories: 3 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: From the Worth Lot and Congress Street Unique Features: former YMCA Building Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To restore the historic building and add a rear addition. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 23 of 26 I. Neighborhood Context: This structure is located along Congress and Middle Streets and is surrounded with many other masonry and wood sided, 2-3 story contributing structures. Importantly, the Worth block directly abuts the rear addition. J. Staff Comments and Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant proposes to: i. Restore the Congress Street façade to its original design ii. Rehabilitate the entire building iii. Add a glass addition to the rear of the building to maintain the view and appearance of the large historic glass windows on the rear wall.. Note, the applicant s revised site plan conforms to all the zoning requirements of the CD5 Character District. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines formasonry & Stucco (07), Small Scale New Construction and Additions (10) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
24 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 135 CONGRESS STREET WORK SESSION #G (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories RESTORE FAÇADE AND INSALL NEW GLASS ADDITION ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) - PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT HDC COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:135 CONGRESS STREET Case No.:G Date: Page 24 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
25 Historic District Commission Project Address: ISLINGTON STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #H A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4-L2 Land Use: Residential Multi-Family Land Area: 39,968 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1850 Building Style: Greek Revival / Colonial Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Islington Street Unique Features: Rear Yard Development Neighborhood Association: Goodwin s Park B. Proposed Work: To renovate three historic structures & add 3 new structures. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very significant alternations, additions or expansions) Page 25 of 26 L. Neighborhood Context: The structure is located along lower Islington Street near the West End. It is surrounded with mainly woodframe 2.5 story historic structures with shallow or no front yard setbacks on relatively small lots. J. Background & Suggested Action: The applicant proposed to: Renovate the 3 historic structures along Islington Street Add three new townhouse structures with 8 dwelling units. Demolition of rear additions and attached garages and side ells. Note the applicant is proposing two options for redevelopment: a three building layout and a 2 buildings layout. Both proposed 8 new dwelling units. I would suggest a site walk would be very helpful as the topography of these lots significantly changes behind the historic structures. Additionally, it will be important to fully understand the relationship between the proposed new structures and the surrounding historic structures on the three streets that line these properties. Design Guideline Reference Guidelines for All Sections (01-12) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
26 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN ISLINGTON STREET WORK SESSION #H (MAJOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 2 Gross Floor Area (SF) Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS MAJOR PROJECT RENOVATE 3 HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND ADD 3 NEW STRUCTURES 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY: ISLINGTON ST. Case No:H Date: Page 26 of 26 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Comp of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
Historic District Commission Staff Report February 1 st, 2017
Historic District Commission Staff Report February 1 st, 2017 Page 1 of 18 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (1-4-17) Request for an Extension 1. 121 State Street Administrative
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 14 Staff Report January 2 nd, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 454 Middle Street - Recommend Approval 2. 24 Johnson Court -
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report November 4 th & 18 th, 2015
Historic District Commission Staff Report November 4 th & 18 th, 2015 Page 1 of 36 8. 54/58 Ceres Street (Minor HVAC units (roof-mounted)) 9. 67-77 State Street (Minor Revise windows and doors) 10. 143
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 32 Staff Report December 6 th, 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 235 Islington Street - TBD 2. 30 Maplewood Ave. - Recommend
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 26 Staff Report June 6 th, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 238 Deer Street - Recommend Approval 2. 59 Sheafe Street - Recommend
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report September 7 th 2016
Historic District Commission Staff Report September 7 th 2016 Page 1 of 10 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (8-3-16, 8-10-16) Administrative Approvals: 1. 77 State Street (termination
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report March 2 nd, 2016
Historic District Commission Staff Report March 2 nd, 2016 Page 1 of 28 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (1-6-16, 1-13-16) Administrative Approvals: 1. 687 Middle Street Misc. changes
More informationResolution : Exhibit A. Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003
Resolution 03-011: Exhibit A Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Adopted March 2003 1 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted
More information4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre. South fields Community Architectural Design Guidelines Town of Caledon
4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre 4.0 Design Guidelines for the Village Centre The Village Centre is the focal point of the entire South Fields Community and is designed as a traditional commercial
More informationMIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued.
N MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C- FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER 04-00 Project No. 496 Issued Revised SCALE: " = 0' N 0 0 0 40 RZ. c GENERAL PROVISIONS: a. SITE LOCATION.
More informationFLORIN ROAD CORRIDOR Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist
FLORIN ROAD CORRIDOR Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist Applicant s Name: Project Address: Phone: Email: Applicant shall fill out the design guidelines checklist for all guidelines applicable
More informationChapel Hill Historic District Commission MILES RESIDENCE. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness 240 Glandon Drive PIN
Chapel Hill Historic District Commission MILES RESIDENCE Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness 240 Glandon Drive PIN 9788871387 The Miles residence is a Cape Cod Revival structure located at 240
More informationParking Garage Site Selection Committee Final Report October 15, 2012
Parking Garage Site Selection Committee Final Report October 15, 2012 Executive Summary Recommend a Short-List of Sites for Further Review: 1. Explore the Possibility of a Private/ Public Partnership 2.
More informationARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE DESIGN GUIDELINES DECEMBER 2000 PREPARED FOR THE MEREDITH PLANNING BOARD BY CHRISTOPHER P. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECTS
DESIGN GUIDELINES DECEMBER 2000 PREPARED FOR THE BY CHRISTOPHER P. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECTS PURPOSE STATEMENT Architectural Design Review Design Guidelines provides architectural guidance intended to support
More informationMorgan s Subdivision Historic District Character-defining Features
Morgan s Subdivision Historic District Character-defining Features DISTRICT DESCRIPTION This small addition, designed as a neighborhood for those wishing to move east from Capitol Hill, was predominantly
More informationWATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 20.25.080 WATERFRONT DISTRICT A. Purpose. This section is intended to implement The Waterfront District Subarea Plan by: 1. Creating a safe, vibrant mixed-use urban
More informationMEMORANDUM. This memo deals with proposed amendments to previously issued Development Permit No for Park Royal North.
MEMORANDUM Date: August 28, 2015 Our File: 1010-20-15-062 To: Design Review Committee From: Lisa Berg, Senior Community Planner Re: Amendment to Development Permit for Park Royal North This memo deals
More informationRequest Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Planner Kristine Gay
Applicant/Owner Ocean Rental Properties, LLC Public Hearing April 13, 2016 City Council Election District Beach Agenda Item 1 Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront
More informationB L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development
B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development Adopted June 18, 2009 This section of the Design and focuses on site planning and design guidance for new multi-family
More informationSMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS. An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation
SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS ILLUSTRATED WORKING FOR TEST IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW SMALL LOT CODE AMENDMENT & POLICY UPDATE
More information6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF HUMAN SCALE
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas Design Approaches 79 6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF HUMAN SCALE There are many elements of buildings and spaces that contribute to the creation
More informationWINDSOR GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES
WINDSOR GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted by Council, 2006 WINDSOR GLEN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES August 2006 1.0 Master Plan Organization For this area of the Coquitlam Town Centre, a mix of high,
More informationWalnut Creek Transit Village Design Guidelines. Part Three III - 25
C. General Design Criteria Part Three DRAFT 0/6/ III - 5 Frontage Types Frontage is a semi-public transition zone at the ground level where public and private realms meet. An understanding of various frontage
More informationREPORT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Agenda Number: HDC 14-15 MEETING DATE: August 21, 2014 REPORT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION SUBJECT: 196 E. Poplar Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations INTRODUCTION: Mike
More informationBaker Historic District
DISTRICT DESCRIPTION This is a historically middle-class neighborhood in the South Side, an area annexed by Denver in 1883, consisting of more than 20 tightly interwoven residential subdivisions. The earliest
More informationSite Planning. 1.0 Site Context. 2.0 Pedestrian Circulation Systems. Pag e 2-23
The following photographs from throughout the country illustrate key urban design principles. Photographs are provided to illustrate the overall urban design concepts described in Chapter 1 of the Downtown
More informationSECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines
SECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines This section provides overall design principles and guidelines for the Gardnerville Mixed-use Overlay. They provide criteria for mixed-use places consisting of residential,
More information13. New Construction. Context & Character
13. New Construction Context & Character While historic districts convey a sense of time and place which is retained through the preservation of historic buildings and relationships, these areas continue
More informationThe broad range of permitted and special uses allowed in the district remain, but some descriptions have been clarified.
Memorandum To: Emily Fultz, AICP City Planner, City of Edwardsville From: Michael Blue, FAICP Principal, Teska Associates Date: January 24, 2019 RE: B-1 Zoning District Update A draft, updated B-1 Central
More informationPROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
PROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 20.25 DESIGN REVIEW. 20.25.080 WATERFRONT DISTRICT A. Purpose. This section is intended to implement The Waterfront District Subarea Plan by: 1. Creating a
More informationWinston Road Neighbourhood Town of Grimsby. Urban Design Manual. February 2016
Winston Road Neighbourhood Town of Grimsby Urban Design Manual February 2016 FEBRUARY 2016 Winston Road Neighbourhood Urban Design Manual Town of Grimsby 1 2 3 Contents Introduction Document Overview...
More informationZBA-BPDA Design Review
ZBA-BPDA Design Review PURPOSE OF DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS + NEXT STEPS The purpose of Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) - Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) design review is to ensure that the design
More informationIncentive Zoning Regulations Florida Municipal City of Orlando
Topic: Resource Type: State: Jurisdiction Type: Municipality: Year (adopted, written, etc.): 2002 Community Type applicable to: Title: Incentive Zoning Regulations Florida Municipal City of Orlando Document
More informationRequired yards shall be horizontally unobstructed except as follows:
ARTICLE IV: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 418 SETBACKS IV 111 418 SETBACKS 418 1 Obstruction in Required Yards Required yards shall be horizontally unobstructed except as follows: 418 1.1 Cornices, eaves, belt
More informationCITY OF TORRANCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TORRANCE TRACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN. City Council Tuesday, December 5, 2017 PAGE & TURNBULL
CITY OF TORRANCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TORRANCE TRACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN City Council Tuesday, December 5, 2017 PAGE & TURNBULL AGENDA PART 1: FRAMEWORK 1. Objectives and Background
More informationAgenda Report Meeting Date 08/01/18
Architectural Review and Historic Preservation Board Agenda Report Meeting Date 08/01/18 DATE: July 16, 2018 File: AR 18-16 TO: Architectural Review and Historic Preservation Board FROM: Kimber Gutierrez,
More informationB. Blocks, Buildings and Street Networks
B. Blocks, Buildings and Street Networks Figure IV.4 A rational block pattern with connected streets Introduction The single most important element in the physical and functional integration of mixed use
More informationINSTITUTIONAL USE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY TECHNIQUES
INSTITUTIONAL USE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY TECHNIQUES INTRODUCTION Community institutions are an important part of the character and vitality of neighborhoods in Forsyth County. Institutional uses include
More informationCOMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
CITY OF LACEY Community Development Department 420 College Street Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 491-5642 COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION OFFICIAL USE ONLY Case Number: Date Received: By: Related Case Numbers:
More informationMULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES Site Plan and Design Review Principles Checklist
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES Site Plan and Design Review Principles Checklist Applicant s Name: Project Address: Phone: Email: Applicant shall fill out the design guidelines checklist for
More informationArchitectural Review Board Report
Architectural Review Board Report To: From: CC: Subject: Architectural Review Board Architectural Review Board Meeting: May 21, 2018 Agenda Item: 8-A Grace Page, Senior Planner Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED
More informationDESIGN GUIDELINES FOR: INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOUSE AND ROWHOUSE
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR: INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOUSE AND ROWHOUSE 1. Introduction Townhouse and Rowhouse Building Typologies Within these guidelines, the term rowhouse means a single row
More informationWide asphalt driveway abutting school property. garage built with incompatible materials, too close to park. incompatible fencing materials
Wide asphalt driveway abutting school property incompatible fencing materials garage built with incompatible materials, too close to park Lack of plantings as a buffer between private property and open
More informationOttawa Historic Resources Inventory: Commercial Historic District Building Information. Significance and Potential Eligibility
C 01 1 Address: address 1 PIN: 21 11 218 001 Plan: Rectangular Stories: 2 Original Owner: Roof Type: Flat Building Names: Marquette School Foundation: Important Dates: ca 1955 Walls: BRICK Architect /
More informationClairtrell Area Context Plan
Clairtrell Area Context Plan March 2005 Urban Development Services City Planning Contents 1. Introduction... 4 2. Development Structure... 6 2.1 Streets... 7 2.1.1 Sheppard Avenue and Bayview Avenue...
More informationRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The residential district standards have been revised to reflect on-the-ground conditions, while continuing to respect the use patterns established within the neighborhoods. This will
More informationDesign Review Checklist for Case No.
ugust 1, 2017 [CLDWLL DIG RVIW CMMII] Design Review Checklist for Case o. / / Dimensional tandards 1. Have all easements been kept clear of any permanent buildings, structures or encroachments? 2. For
More informationGUIDELINES REPLACEMENT HOUSING GUIDELINES LOCATION INTRODUCTION URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
Replacement housing in the former City of North York will be consistent with the following urban design guidelines. They provide a framework for residential re-development in the former City of North York
More informationZoning OBJECTIVE: in the zoning. is to make. projects for. the Planning and. are attached ITTALS: Department
City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department CITY OF MIAMI VISION STATEMENT: To Be an International City that Embodies Diversity, Economic Opportunity, Effective Customer Service and a Highly Rated Quality
More informationOFFICIAL AGENDA OF THE
OFFICIAL AGENDA OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI SPECIAL CALL MEETING OF TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017 AT STARKVILLE CITY HALL, SECOND FLOOR CONFRENCE ROOM, LOCATED
More informationAnalysis of Environs of 1000 New York Street, German Methodist Episcopal Church
Item No. 3: L-14-00028 p.1 Analysis of Environs of New York Street, German Methodist Episcopal Church Step One Historical Significance and Context According to the application for Historic Landmark Designation,
More informationCity of Vaughan Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development in Established Low-Rise Residential Neighbourhoods
City of Vaughan Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development in Established Low-Rise Residential Neighbourhoods DRAFT - September 2016 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Policy Context 3 3. Characteristics
More informationCha p t e r 2: Ge n e r a l De s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s
Downtown Ann Arbor Design Guidelines Cha p t e r 2: Ge n e r a l De s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s This chapter presents general design guidelines for new site plan or PUD projects in downtown Ann Arbor. The
More information14.0 BUILT FORM DESIGN CRITERIA
14.0 BUILT FORM DESIGN CRITERIA CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF CARLETON PLACE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY-LAW 123 124 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF CARLETON PLACE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY-LAW 14.1 MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT
More informationChapter II: Building Placement, Massing and Access
II - 1 The Framework Plan established by the Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment defines the public streets and parks of the Phase II area in a two-dimensional plan. This chapter provides requirements
More informationTHE AVENUES HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY BUILDING INVENTORY SHEET
THE AVENUES HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY BUILDING INVENTORY SHEET Issued by the Arts, Culture & Heritage Division of the City of Peterborough with ERA Architects Inc. Thank you for agreeing to
More informationUrban Design Brief Woodland Cemetery Funeral Home 493 Springbank Drive
Urban Design Brief Woodland Cemetery Funeral Home The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron April 15, 2016 Urban Design Brief April 15, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION... 1 SECTION 1
More informationMulti family Residential Development Permit Area
City of Kamloops KAMPLAN Multi family Residential Development Permit Area PURPOSE The purpose of this Development Permit Area (DPA) is to establish objectives and provide guidelines for the form and character
More informationThe Village. Chapter 3. Mixed Use Development Plan SPECIFIC PLAN
The Village SPECIFIC PLAN Chapter 3 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.1.1 Purpose This Chapter describes the development regulations applicable to the Mixed-Use and Transit Center Planning Areas. These form-based regulations
More informationDesign Guidelines. Roosevelt. Mike Podowski DPD Design Guidelines Ordinance ATT 13 August 13, 2012 Version #1
Roosevelt Design Guidelines The Roosevelt Neighborhood Design Guidelines apply within the Neighborhood Boundary. Map 1 2 Map 2 3 Map 3 4 CS1 Natural Systems and Site Features Citywide Guideline: Use natural
More informationFuture Five. Design/ Development Guidelines. January 2008 Amended June 08 per City Council motion
Future Five Design/ Development Guidelines January 2008 Amended June 08 per City Council motion 5-Points Design Guidelines Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Area boundaries 4 III. Review Process
More informationDRAFT Northeast Quadrant of Kipling Avenue and Highway 7 DRAFT AUGUST 29, Goals Land Use. The goals of this Plan are to:
AUGUST 29, 2017 12.15 Northeast Quadrant of Kipling Avenue and Highway 7 12.15.1 Goals 12.15.2 Land Use The goals of this Plan are to: 12.15.2.1 General Provisions: a) Ensure the development of a compact
More informationResidential Design Guidelines
Residential Design Guidelines Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Introduction These guidelines seek to provide property owners, designers and developers with a clear understanding of the City
More informationCITY OF VAUGHAN REPORT NO. 3 OF THE HERITAGE VAUGHAN COMMITTEE
CITY OF VAUGHAN REPORT NO. 3 OF THE HERITAGE VAUGHAN COMMITTEE For consideration by the Committee of the Whole of the City of Vaughan on April 24, 2012 The Heritage Vaughan Committee met at 7:00 p.m.,
More informationResidential Design Standards Stakeholders Meeting
Residential Design Standards Stakeholders Meeting CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT JULY 29 TH, 2008 Agenda Introductions Housekeeping Recap of 1 st meeting Presentation-Planning Policies and Regulations
More informationST. ANDREWS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS
ST. ANDREWS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS The following recommended list of development criteria are presented for consideration in guiding residential development in the St. Andrews historic
More informationNEW HOMES IN ANCASTER S MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS WHAT WE HAVE HEARD
NEW HOMES IN ANCASTER S MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS Council directed staff to review the Existing Residential ER Zone in Ancaster as a pilot project to determine how to manage the building of new residential
More informationAppendix D North Road/N. Leroy Street Subarea Plan
North Road/N. Leroy Street Subarea Plan INTRODUCTION The City of Fenton Master Plan was updated in 1996 and included a subarea plan for the North Leroy Street area of the City. It was recognized at that
More informationCENTERS AND CORRIDORS
INITIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES for CENTERS AND CORRIDORS City of Spokane Planning Services Third Floor, City Hall 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201-3329 (509) 625-6300 www.spokaneplanning.org
More informationDRAFT City of Puyallup Downtown Design Guidelines
DRAFT City of Puyallup Downtown Design Guidelines Contents 1.A. The Goal of These Design Guidelines... 3 1.B. How to Use These Design Guidelines... 4 1.C. Required Guideline Chapters by Project Type...
More informationPlanning Board Hearing October 20th, 2016
Planning Board Hearing October 0th, 06 Developer: Real Estate Management & Leasing: Architect: Transportation Engineers: Landscape Architect: Civil Engineer: THE ARSENAL PROJECT Planning Board AGENDA Introduction
More informationDesign Guidelines for
Chapter 6 Design Guidelines for Historic Resources Design Guidelines for Individual Building Elements This chapter presents design guidelines for the preservation of individual historic building elements
More informationRevitalization Guidelines for Corridors, Villages and Town Centres
Revitalization Guidelines for Corridors, Villages and Town Centres July 2017 Updated May, 2018 Publishing Information Title: Prepared by: Revitalization Guidelines for Corridors, Villages and Town Centres
More informationChapter 5: Mixed Use Neighborhood Character District
5: Mixed Use Neighborhood Character District 5.1 Introduction The Mixed Use Neighborhood character district acts as a transition or bridge between the State Route 89A District s commercial area to the
More informationC-I-10. The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: B. Reduce the cluttered aspects of current development by:
C-I-10 PART C SECTION I ARTICLE 10 GENERAL REGULATIONS PROJECT SITE REVIEW I. Purpose The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: A. Protect streetscapes from projects that
More informationLITTLETON CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES
LITTLETON CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES Littleton Center Design Guidelines 1 I. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS These Design Guidelines have been initially created by Hallin Family LLC (the "Developer"), and govern all
More informationThe Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530 Note: Staff reports can be accessed at www.mncppc.org/pgco/planning/plan.htm.
More informationResources Present: _x_building Structure Object Site District _X_Element of District Other:
NRHP Status Code 5D1 - contributor Page 1 of 1 *Resource Name: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave. P1: Other Identifier: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave. c: Address: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90035 e: Other Locational
More informationConcrete Flat Tile Roofs Large Exposed Overhangs Oversized Bracing Predominately Gable Roofs With Non-Plaster Gable End Treatments.
Avila Ranch Concrete Flat Tile Roofs Large Exposed Overhangs Oversized Bracing Predominately Gable Roofs With Non-Plaster Gable End Treatments Simple Trim Figure B-22: Craftsman Architectural Style Low
More informationPLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT 55 DELHI STREET CITY OF GUELPH PREPARED FOR: VESTERRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PREPARED BY: LABRECHE PATTERSON & ASSOCIATES INC. SCOTT PATTERSON, BA, CPT, MCIP, RPP PRINCIPAL,
More information(APN: );
Gardnerville Town Board AGENDA ACTION SHEET 1. For Possible Action: Discussion to approve, approve with modifications or deny a project review application for Chase Bank located South of Lampe Drive, East
More informationDRAFT APPENDIX C. COMMON RESIDENTIAL STYLES IN THE SNOHOMISH HISTORIC DISTRICT Era of construction and architectural characteristics
COMMON RESIDENTIAL STYLES IN THE SNOHOMISH HISTORIC DISTRICT Era of construction and architectural characteristics Gothic Revival (1840 1880) Steeply pitched roof Cross gables common Round turret Bay windows
More informationTazewell Pike. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines
Tazewell Pike Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines Knoxville Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission November 2, 2000 These design guidelines were: Adopted by the Knoxville
More informationPLANNING BOARD REPORT PORTLAND, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD REPORT PORTLAND, MAINE Zero Canal Plaza Development 0 Canal Plaza 2016-162 Cow Plaza 1, LLC Submitted to: Portland Planning Board Date: August 4, 2016 Public Hearing Date: August 9, 2016
More informationPolicies and Code Intent Sections Related to Town Center
Policies and Code Intent Sections Related to Town Center The Town Center Vision is scattered throughout the Comprehensive Plan, development code and the 1994 Town Center Plan. What follows are sections
More informationHousing and Coach House Guidelines - Ladner
Housing and Coach House Guidelines - Ladner Policy D.8: Encourage Compatible Housing Design Encourage housing design that is sensitive to existing single family housing neighbourhoods by requiring a design
More informationAugust 1, 2018 beginning at 12:30 p.m. in Room 400 of City Hall
June 5, 2018 Re: Initiation of Rousseaus Boulevard Tract Historic District Dear Property Owner, Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm and feedback over the last two years. Your comments have guided numerous
More informationTULSA PRESERVATION COMMISSION COA SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
TULSA PRESERVATION COMMISSION COA SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Thursday, August 6, 2015 COA-15-037 COA NUMBER: COA-15-037 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1724 SOUTH MADISON AVENUE DISTRICT: NORTH MAPLE RIDGE HISTORIC DISTRICT
More informationCHAPTER 11 HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 11 HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION 11.01 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE This District is intended primarily for uses emphasizing highway related service, such as service stations, restaurants,
More informationSEAPINES STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MARCH 2017
SEAPINES STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MARCH 2017 CONTENTS DEFINITIONS... 2 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE... 3 LOCATION... 3 RECOMMENDED BUILDING PLACEMENT & SETBACKS... 5 RECOMMENDED CONCEPTS
More informationDowntown. Design Review. City of Bartlesville Bartlesville welcomes and encourages Special Events. Special Events build a sense of
City of Bartlesville 8.2015 Downtown Design Review Bartlesville welcomes and encourages Special Events. Special Events build a sense of community Contents and create an environment that fosters civic pride.
More information(DC1) Direct Development Control Provision DC1 Area 4
. General Purpose (DC) Direct Development Control Provision DC Area 4 The purpose of this Provision is to provide for an area of commercial office employment and residential development in support of the
More informationZONING. 300 Attachment 1. City of Oneonta. Design Guidelines ( )
300 Attachment 1 City of Oneonta Design Guidelines ( 300-68) A. Site Organization. These guidelines address issues related to both building and parking location. Other issues include vehicle access (curb
More informationCITY OF MERCER ISLAND DESIGN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND DESIGN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 2 March 9, 2011 Project: Description: Applicant: DSR11-004 The applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing exterior wood framed
More informationAllston Brighton Boston College Task Force Meeting. Brighton Marine Health Center March 27, 2013
Allston Brighton Boston College Task Force Meeting Brighton Marine Health Center March 27, 2013 Presentation Overview 6:30-6:35 Introductions & Announcements 6:35-6:40 Overall Project and Review Schedule
More informationCHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS. Commercial Facades
Design Guidelines for Historic Resources CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS This chapter presents design guidelines for the preservation of individual historic building elements
More informationArchitectural Inventory Form (page 1 of 5)
OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY (page 1 of 5) Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible-
More informationThe Village at Hospital Hill
The Village at Hospital Hill Design Intention: Create a compact, mixed-use neighborhood which creates a genuine village, consistent with what was originally intended for the redevelopment of Hospital Hill.
More informationSECTION V: DESIGN GUIDELINE EXAMPLES
SECTION V: DESIGN GUIDELINE EXAMPLES Introduction The Syracuse Town Center is envisioned as an area that creates a sense of place, a community downtown. As such, the Town Center Committee recommended the
More informationPRESENTED: April 15, 2008 FILE: DP No. 273/ Development Permit No Government Road Townhomes
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH REPORT TO: Council FOR: Regular PRESENTED: April 15, 2008 FILE: DP No. 273/2007-26 FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Department Development Permit No. 273 40126 Government Road Townhomes Recommendation
More information